San Diegans would be forgiven, perhaps even applauded, for avoiding Seaport Village. Aside from the view, the 38 year-old waterfront property’s best pitch to consumers involves chain restaurants and trinket shops, seemingly only securing the approbation of cruise ship patrons and out-of-towners.

​However, a grandiose plan to turn the prime real estate into a world-class destination lauded by locals and foreigners alike is currently underway. Called Seaport San Diego, the $1.6 billion project, backed in part by San Diego’s famed Jacobs family, was selected by the Port of San Diego in November 2016 to redevelop 70 acres — 39 land acres and 31 water acres — and is still in the beginning stages.

​The mixed-use project calls for 1,933 hotel rooms (spread across six different hotel brands), 276,000 square feet of retail, 150,000 square feet of office, 2,200 parking spaces and 14,000 linear feet of waterside dockage. There’s also 28 acres of public open space, not including an additional 10 acres of public-access rooftop decks. A best-case scenario would see development commence in three to four years and a first phase open to the public in 2024. Of course, financing, environmental review and agency approvals would all have to align perfectly so as not to trip up developer 1HWY1’s progress.

]]>Sat, 03 Nov 2018 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.mnmadpr.com/news-blog/getting-the-lead-out-doctor-who-uncovered-the-flint-water-crisis-comes-to-san-diego-bettersdIn 2015, the City of Flint, Michigan became a symbol for the national crisis of lead in our drinking water. Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha found children in Flint were being severely damaged by their exposure to lead. Next week, Dr. Hanna-Attisha will be in San Diego, and she has bold advice for local officials on responding to the lead issue.

“Lead is unfortunately in school water throughout the nation," Dr. Hanna-Attisha said. “Schools are meant to be places were children learn and develop, not places where you can potentially be exposed to a neurotoxin which impedes learning and development.”

San Diego Unified began targeted testing for lead in school drinking water in 2017, working with its water provider, the City of San Diego, to assess the extent of the problem. Tests found elevated levels of lead in about 20 percent of schools tested. Outlets with elevated levels of lead were turned off, so students could not drink from them until they were repaired or replaced. The district also made plans to expand testing to include every outlet at every school.

SAN DIEGO –​ The City of San Diego should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of government-controlled energy before flipping the switch and moving residents and businesses into such a program.

​Our coalition has said we would support government-controlled energy in San Diego, also known as Community Choice Aggregation or CCA, if it were cheaper, greener and did not shift costs by forcing ratepayers in neighboring communities to subsidize the city’s new program.

State regulators essentially resolved the cost-shift issue earlier this month, ensuring any future costs shifts would be minimal. Several proponents of government-controlled energy programs criticized the decision, because state regulators reformulated the cost formula for CCA customers, ensuring they pay their fair share of legacy costs for power contracts purchased in the past for their benefit. The San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting the new fee structure would add more than $20 a month to the electricity bills of residential customers in San Diego.

​For our coalition, the decision by the California Public Utilities Commission to treat all customers fairly eliminated a key concern, but critical questions remain.

Would a San Diego CCA benefit the environment materially more than current state laws require, and produce good-paying local jobs?

Does San Diego have the expertise to buy and sell energy?

If the city launches a CCA and it fails, what would that mean for taxpayers?

With all the other problems facing San Diego, including homelessness and the high cost of housing, should government-controlled energy be a priority at City Hall?

Given that transportation is the largest generator of greenhouse gas emissions, is the focus on energy, rather than promoting cleaner transportation, misplaced?

“If the city decides to form a CCA, an important question to ask is: would it actually help San Diego reach its clean air goals faster and cheaper than current state laws require?” said Ruben Barrales, who heads the Latino Leadership & Policy Forum and co-chairs the Clear the Air coalition.

​SB100 is a sweeping statewide clean energy bill recently approved by the California legislature and signed by the governor. It requires all energy providers in California to provide 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. This development along with other recent state policy changes raise questions about the need for government-controlled energy programs.

​“This historic legislation will achieve most, if not all, of the emission reductions targeted under the renewable energy goals of the city of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan,” said Jerry Sanders, a coalition member and president & CEO of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. “Under this new state law, these reductions will occur with or without a CCA — and without exposing taxpayers to financial risk.”

A city-funded feasibility study determined it would cost San Diego about $1 billion to establish a CCA. That same study said that, under a high exit-fee scenario, a CCA in San Diego could create a potential loss of nearly $3 billion. State regulators unanimously approved a substantial increase to the exit fee, making the high exit-fee scenario much more applicable.

While SB100 diminishes the ability of a San Diego CCA to produce environmental benefits beyond a statewide 100 percent clean-energy mandate, another bill recently approved in Sacramento, SB237, increases the risks because it would allow the city’s largest energy users (school districts, hospitals, data centers, etc.) to purchase their clean energy from sources other than the CCA. Losing large energy consumers to direct access would sharply reduce CCA revenues, and residents and businesses served by a CCA can return to the utility.

To date, CCAs have been reluctant to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy, or build new facilities. As a result, CCAs mostly buy and sell existing green energy, a practice known as resource shuffling that does not create new local jobs or clean our air any faster.

“The evidence indicates a San Diego CCA would not meet the city’s goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2035 or create many new jobs, but it would create risk for taxpayers, who are ultimately the backstop of any government-controlled energy program,” said Dr. Lynn Reaser, Chief Economist of the state Controller’s Council of Economic Advisors and at Point Loma Nazarene University.

​Rev. Gerald Brown, a Clear the Air co-chair who heads the United African American Ministerial Action Council, said: “SB100 and the new exit fees completely changed the game. A CCA in San Diego now means a monthly bill increase of at least $21, with no environmental benefits and few local jobs in return. These added costs hit the communities I represent the hardest. So, the right thing for the city to do is thank the state and focus efforts more intensely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources.”

About: The Clear the Air Coalition is a group of business, environmental, civic and taxpayer leaders working to ensure a diverse range of voices is heard and important questions are answered before critical decisions are made about San Diego’s climate and energy future. Learn more at: www.clearair.us Follow us at: @cleartheairco and facebook.com/cleartheairco

As a younger man, he ran marathons. “I was running 100 miles a week,” Gaffen said. Friends and business associates said that need to challenge himself is typical, illustrated perhaps in that Gaffen is involved in two major projects on opposite sides of the planet.

​He and his partners in Protea Waterfront Development are developers of the $1.2 billon redevelopment of a 70-acre portion of San Diego’s waterfront that includes Seaport Village. His project management firm, Gafcon, also is overseeing the development of a sprawling waterfront site in China along the Huangpu River spanning five square miles. The project is estimated to cost more than $7 billion.

]]>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.mnmadpr.com/news-blog/finding-a-home-in-california-is-hard-rent-control-will-make-it-harderMeasure W in National City and Prop. 10 propose flawed plans that will actually increase rents and make it harder for new renters to find an apartment.

You know a problem is bad when it makes bipartisan enemies. These days, San Diego’s housing crisis has everyone from developers and environmentalists as well as business and labor leaders seeking solutions for smarter growth in our region. And while not everyone may agree on how we get there, everyone agrees we need more housing in California.

​But there is a major roadblock to this progress rearing its ugly head on our ballot. California’s Proposition 10 and National City’s Measure W will be decided by voters this November. Both claim to address the housing crisis but neither measure creates a single unit of housing and both will actually increase the cost of housing while burdening taxpayers. Policies like these seek to increase the number of rent-controlled units or limit landlords’ ability to change rents, but according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “neither of these changes would increase the supply of housing and, in fact, likely would discourage new construction.” If policies like Prop. 10 and Measure W pass, there may be no pulling our limited housing supply back from the brink of unaffordability.

The Airport Authority has circulated a flawed and misleading draft environmental impact report to redevelop Terminal 1 at San Diego International Airport.

​The airport wants to push the costs to minimize traffic, transit and air emission impacts onto residents, local businesses, the city of San Diego, the Port of San Diego, SANDAG and others.

Unless corrected, this project threatens nearby neighborhoods, leaving them with more traffic, more noise and more air pollution, and little in the way of plans to eliminate or minimize these impacts. The environmental impact report uses outdated facts, understates problems this redevelopment creates and ignores the impacts on residents and businesses in Point Loma, Little Italy and elsewhere. The Airport Authority should go back to the drawing board and get it right.

]]>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.mnmadpr.com/news-blog/dog-pile-local-agencies-blast-the-airport-authoritys-plan-to-redo-terminal-1Local political leaders from across the spectrum agree the airport’s more than $2 billion plan to renovate Terminal 1 is a big regional priority that could boost the economy. Yet officials from several agencies have weighed in to express exasperation and frustration with the airport’s approach to the project.

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is trying to build one of the region’s most anticipated projects, and just about every major public agency in town is pissed about it.

The Airport Authority earlier this year unveiled the environmental report for its plan to rebuild Lindbergh Field’s Terminal 1. The project could cost up to $3 billion. Local political leaders from across the spectrum agree it’s a priority for San Diego’s economy.

​But officials from the city of San Diego, the Port of San Diego, San Diego County, the Metropolitan Transit System, the San Diego Association of Governments, the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission and the state Department of Transportation submitted stern – at times exasperated – letters opposing the airport’s approach.

The Clear the Air coalition released the following statement today in response to calls from proponents of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), or government-run energy, urging Mayor Kevin Faulconer to place the issue before the City Council for a vote:

​“We applaud Mayor Kevin Faulconer for not rushing into this decision. A government-run energy program in San Diego would expose taxpayers to significant financial risk.

“Earlier this year, the mayor said the city should not consider CCA until it knows what such a program would cost taxpayers, and those costs are still unknown because state regulators have yet to establish a new fee structure for CCAs. When that information is available the city should conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine if a CCA is worth the risk and whether a statewide energy solution is a better choice for San Diego.

​“State lawmakers recently established a new 100% clean energy mandate for California that essentially creates the same outcome CCA proponents desire with no risk to San Diego taxpayers.

“Our coalition supports the city’s clean energy goals, but we don’t want to gamble with the city’s financial future. The prudent path is the one the mayor chose. The city needs to know what a government-run energy program would cost taxpayers before it can make an informed decision.”

About: The Clear the Air Coalition is a group of business, environmental, civic and taxpayer leaders working to ensure a diverse range of voices is heard and important questions are answered before critical decisions are made about San Diego’s energy and climate future. Learn more at: www.clearair.usFollow us at: @cleartheaircoand facebook.com/cleartheairco

Diana Yescas’ life improved after she moved into an apartment at Paradise Creek, an affordable-housing complex on the west side of National City.

The single mother and her two daughters, ages 7 and 8, went from living in a tiny 1-bedroom apartment with pest infestations and no heater to a more comfortable and larger 2-bedroom unit at Paradise Creek on Hoover Avenue.

“My daughters and I are blessed to have a place in this new community,” Yescas said.

​She was among the residents who moved into the 109 apartments that made up the first phase of the $100 million development.

It’s clear government-controlled energy, or Community Choice Aggregation, is not delivering on its promises to provide greener and cheaper energy. CCAs are not delivering on the fundamental need of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So why are we seeing more CCAs, aka Community Choice Energy, surface in California? Why is the San Diego City Council considering forming what would be one of the largest government-controlled energy programs in the state? And just who is behind this scheme?

​As San Diego’s former mayor, Jerry Sanders, pointed out recently, government-controlled energy programs are surfacing because cities are being forced to try and implement their own Climate Action Plans. But CCAs fall well short of achieving the goal of these plans: 100 percent renewable energy.